National Union of Mineworkers v AFGEM Ltd and Others (J581/06) [2006] ZALC 133 (21 April 2006)

National Union of Mineworkers v AFGEM Ltd and Others (J581/06) [2006] ZALC 133 (21 April 2006)

The court found that the respondents failed to consult adequately and in good faith with the union regarding the change of employment conditions and the imposition of unpaid leave. The lockout was implemented to avoid paying employees and was procedurally unfair, particularly as the respondents sought to maintain an essential services crew, which is prohibited in an offensive lockout. The respondents misled the union and the court regarding the identity of the true employer, rendering the referral to conciliation questionable. The respondents were not frank or fair in their dealings with the union and the employees. The court granted the orders sought by the applicant, as amended,...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 133
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: AFGEM Ltd; Respondent: Simolotse Mine (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: AFGEM Diamonds (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2006
Case Number
J581/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Orders issued as sought by the applicant, with amendments. Costs awarded against the third respondent.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Lockout, Change of Conditions of Employment, Unpaid Leave, Consultation With Union, Employer Identity, Costs Award
Labour Law Lockout Change of Conditions of Employment Unpaid Leave Consultation With Union Employer Identity Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant

AFGEM Ltd

Respondent

Simolotse Mine (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

AFGEM Diamonds (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' lockout and change of employment conditions were lawful and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents consulted adequately with the union regarding the change of conditions and unpaid leave.
  3. 3 Who is the true employer for purposes of the dispute and referral to conciliation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to consult adequately and in good faith with the union regarding the change of employment conditions and the imposition of unpaid leave. The lockout was implemented to avoid paying employees and was procedurally unfair, particularly as the respondents sought to maintain an essential services crew, which is prohibited in an offensive lockout. The respondents misled the union and the court regarding the identity of the true employer, rendering the referral to conciliation questionable. The respondents were not frank or fair in their dealings with the union and the employees. The court granted the orders sought by the applicant, as amended,...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Orders issued as sought by the applicant, with amendments. Costs awarded against the third respondent.

Orders

  • The second respondent is directed to reinstate the employees with effect from 1 April 2006.
  • Paragraph 2 is amended by deletion of the words 'first and', and the amended order is granted.